MP High Court stays FSSAI's ban on whisky, Khargone firm rum; 11 TASMAC brands cleared

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has put a hold on an FSSAI directive that prohibited the sale of pre-packaged whisky and rum manufactured by a private company in Madhya Pradesh’s Khargone district. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department has lifted a temporary restriction on the sale of 11 liquor brands retailed through state-run TASMAC outlets, just three days after imposing the ban, according to PTI.

The department has instructed TASMAC managing director to allow the affected products to be transported from depots and sold at retail outlets again.

What did Madhya Pradesh HC say?

A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Alok Awasthi issued the interim stay on August 6 while hearing a plea filed by Associated Alcohols and Breweries Limited.

The court put on hold the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) prohibition order dated July 29 until the next hearing on September 7. The bench observed that the regulator had issued the restriction without taking into account the company’s response to the show-cause notice.

"Thus, considering the fact that otherwise the petitioner's products, namely, Pre-packed whisky and Rum as mentioned in the impugned order of prohibition comply with the parameters as provided under the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is directed that till the next date of hearing operation and effect of the impugned order of prohibition dated 29.07.2026 shall remain stayed," the bench said.

The court also asked the Centre to submit its response within four weeks.

The FSSAI had relied on a preliminary laboratory report while issuing its prohibition order, stating that the labels on the products disclosed the use of "added nature identical and artificial (rum) flavouring substances", which it said did not meet the prescribed standards.

Associated Alcohols and Breweries, however, maintained that the use of extra neutral alcohol (ENA), along with permitted flavours and colours, was allowed under Madhya Pradesh’s excise regulations.

The company also questioned FSSAI’s authority to regulate the products, arguing that the state government has sole jurisdiction over liquor manufacturing and regulation.

Appearing for the company, senior advocate Piyush Mathur told the court that the firm received the show-cause notice on July 20 and submitted its detailed response on July 27, within the deadline. He argued that the prohibition order issued on July 29 made no mention of the company’s response.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, representing the Centre, submitted that the authority had not addressed the preliminary jurisdictional objections raised by the company in its reply. The bench, however, found the argument unsatisfactory and rejected the contention.

What happened in Tamil Nadu?

The restriction, imposed on August 11, covered 10 varieties of brandy and one rum brand. According to the department’s communication to TASMAC, an FSSAI inspection of the manufacturing facility operated by Enrica Enterprises Private Limited in Poonamallee, Tiruvallur district, identified several labelling and product-compliance issues.

The inspection flagged non-compliant labelling, incorrect product names and the use of natural-identical and artificial flavouring substances, following which the temporary suspension of sales was ordered.

Officials said the restriction on all 11 brands was withdrawn with immediate effect on August 14 after the manufacturer appealed against the ban and assured authorities of complete compliance with the prescribed requirements.

The temporary prohibition imposed on August 11 was therefore formally lifted three days later.

(With inputs from PTI)